Tuesday, August 19, 2014

Cantarella understands that the baptism of desire is not an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus: extend the reasoning to Vatican Council II




Avatar

Cantarella understands that the baptism of desire is not a defacto exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.Since, she says we cannot see the dead.This was the Cushingite mistake.
She also understands that traditionalists, sedevacantists and liberals are making the same error. They assume that the baptism of desire refers to objective cases.Hypothetical cases are visible in the flesh. The dead are visible on earth for them.
She now has to extend this insight to Vatican Council II.
Like being saved with the baptism of desire is invisible for us, so also being saved with ' a ray of the Truth'(NA 2) is invisible for us.Just as the baptism of desire is not an explicit exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus so NA 2 is not an exception to all needing the baptism of water for salvation in 2014.
She then has to apply this reasoning to LG 16,LG 8,UR 3 etc. She will find that there is nothing in Vatican Council II to contradict extra ecclesiam nulla salus.Also she may have already noticed that Ad Gentes 7  supports the dogma on exclusive salvation when it says all need faith and baptism for salvation.Vatican Council II is Feeneyite!
She could begin new threads on Internet forums,on the subject of Vatican Council II or the Catechism of the Catholic Church,while using this reasoning!
-Lionel Andrades

Baptism of Desire cannot be a visible exception to EENS, since we cannot see the dead - Cantarella, CathInfo traditional forum
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/07/baptism-of-desire-cannot-be-visible.html#links

BODers of today carry the same Cushingite error of thinking the baptism of desire as a visible exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus-Catarella,CathInfo forum
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/07/boders-of-today-carry-same-cushinguite.html#links


The Holy Office 1949 made a mistake. Cardinal Marchetti-Selvaggiani assumed there are known exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus-Cantarella, CathInfo forum
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/08/the-holy-office-1949-made-mistake.html

Sedevacantists "traditionalists in name only" share the same very mistake with the liberals Novus Ordo Catholics-Cantarella
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/08/sedevacantists-traditionalists-in-name.html#links

Cushingism is the name of the error that is professed. The error of believing there are known exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus- Cantarella, CathInfo forum
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/08/cushingism-is-name-of-error-that-is.html

Until today there is no apology issued from the Vatican or the Jesuits

Church Texts Condemning Feeneyism Richard J. Cushing, Archbishop of Boston – Decree Regarding Leonard Feeney, April 18, 1949
Rev. Leonard Feeney, S.J., because of grave offense against the laws of the Catholic Church has lost the right to perform any priestly function, including preaching and teaching of religion.
Any Catholics who frequent St. Benedict’s Center, or who in any way take part in or assist its activities forfeit the right to receive the Sacrament of Penance and Holy Eucharist.
Given at Boston on the 18th day of April, 1949.
 
Cardinal Richard Cushing, the Archbishop of Boston  denied the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus by assuming there were known exceptions. Then he issued a decree against Fr.Leonard Feeney prohibiting him from using his priestly faculties.He prevented Catholics from going to the St.Benedict Center.
 
This was public heresy and the Holy Office did not excommunicate the archbishop of Boston.Neither did they support Fr.Leonard Feeney on doctrine.
Until today there is no apology issued by the Vatican or the Jesuits.
 
The irrational interpretation of the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance is being used by most Catholics, in the interpretation of Vatican Council II. It is this error which makes Vatican Council II a break with the past.
This is the missing link which can affect a reconciliation with the Society of St.Pius X and the Franciscans of the Immaculate. Correct the error and Vatican Council II is traditional on other religions and ecumenism. Ad Gentes 7 has the same message as extra ecclesiam nulla salus and NA 2,UR 3 etc being implicit and not explicit, are not exceptions to AG 7 or the interpretation of the dogma according to Fr.Leonard Feeney.
Cushingism is the missing jigsaw piece one has to be aware of .It can make Vatican Council non traditional and irrational.Vatican Council II was originally traditional before the Cushingite error.

I accept the literal interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus according to Fr.Leonard Feeney and endorse an implicit for us and visible only for God baptism of desire

Ambrose:
I have said this over and over again. Fr. Feeney was excommunicated for disobedience for not reporting to Rome. But, he was being called to Rome for his doctrinal errors. 
Lionel:
How could affirming the dogma as it was interpreted throughout the centuries be a doctrinal error? Were the popes and saints also wrong?
How can the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance be considered an exception to the traditional interpretation ? We do not know any such person who is saved in the present times.Can you name someone in 2013-2014? Also no pope or saint says these cases are physically visible to us and so are known exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
Also to assume that there are known excpetions to the dogma is not only irrational but is also heresy.It is a new doctrine.This was not part of the Deposit of the Faith before 1949.
Ambrose:
The 1949 Holy Office letter specifically corrected St. Benedict Center, and that included Fr. Feeney for their doctrinal error denial of Implicit Baptism of Desire. 
Lionel:
Implicit for us baptism of desire is implicit for us. It is invisible.How can something which is not explicit be relevant or an exception to the literal interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney?
Ambrose:
You are of course correct, and I have always said the same, that the original error of denying implicit Baptism of desire grew into a heresy of denying Baptism of Desire in and of itself.
Lionel:
Whether one denies or accepts the baptism of desire, what has this to do with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus?
Ambrose:
This is what today's Feeneyites are, we are no longer in the 1940's. I do not know of any Feeneyites who hold the original SBC position any longer! as far as I see, they all deny Baptism of Desire, or if not deny it, at least doubt it, which is a grave sin against Faith.
Lionel:
I affirm the traditional interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus. I also affirm the baptism of desire.I accept the literal interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus according to Fr.Leonard Feeney and endorse an implicit for us and visible only for God baptism of desire.
For me it does not have to be an either or position.I do not have to choose. I can eat my cake and cut it too! This is possible since the baptism of desire is always, not visible for me.

Cushingism is the name of the error that is professed. The error of believing there are known exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus- Cantarella, CathInfo forum

However, Cushinguism is the name of the error that is professed. The error of believing there are known exceptions to EENS (extra ecclesiam nulla salus) which would be the souls saved in "invincible ignorance" via last minute BOD (baptism of desire).
Cushingism leads to the error of believing that BOD and invincible ignorance are actually de fide, instead of hypothetical, and it degenerates without fail in universalism and indifferentism, which ends up in the Prayer at Assisi.   

Suprema Haec is just one letter signed by a secretary and handled by a notorious modernist. In it, they purposely twisted the words of Pope Pius XII's encyclical to say more than they actually do. In Mystici Corporis Pope Pius did not say that these non-Catholics who have this unconscious yearning and desire to be members of the Mystical Body are actually related, part of, or inside this Body. What he said was that they “ordinentur ” (are ordained) towards this Body which is true of anyone cooperating with actual grace.

Avatar
But why would God draw such a cooperative soul towards His Church just for allow him to die without receiving the Sacrament necessary for salvation?.
-Cantarella